Referism, Direct Democracy and Oblivion

In his usual Saturday op-ed piece in the Daily Telegraph, Charles Moore writes on the subjects of human rights, civil servants and David Cameron.

Moore castigates what he calls 'independent' civil servants, making the point that civil servants serve, that if they become 'independent' then exactly who are they serving and therefore have, by default, then become master. Can not the same accusation be laid at the door of our elected representatives? As with civil servants who have become 'masters', so have our elected representatives, generally, in that they uphold the belief of Edmund Burke; coupled of course with their slavish behaviour where party Whips are concerned, in the hope of gaining personal advancement.

In his castigation of civil servants, Moore then proceeds to criticise those appointed to head quangos, IPSA and other public bodies, the result of which he maintains leaves Parliament, government, those elected and the public at the mercy of the unelected. Neither does he mention that the problem is self made - after all, who exactly is it that makes those appointments? Unfortunately, Moore does not then highlight that that is surely a democratic deficit in our present system of democracy.

David Cameron may well - to quote Moore - have been suspicious of the human rights theocrats. Again, rather unfortunately, Moore fails to note that Cameron must know that the return of 'rights', as with the return of powers from the EU, can only be accomplished with a decision to cease membership of both bodies, along with the Council of Europe. Moore also fails to proffer the suggestion that perhaps it is the people living in a country who are the only ones to decide the rights to which they - and anyone visiting that country - are entitled.

In making the point that in our present system of democracy the people have little or no say in that which is done to them and supposedly on their behalf, it is also worth my linking to a post from Richard North, EU Referendum, on the subject of a report by the National Audit Office on the subject of carbon capture and storage - and the small matter of £64million that has been wasted attempting to accomplish that which Richard North states is not technically feasible.

That much is, indeed, wrong with our present system of democracy is illustrated wherein Moore questions the power of bureaucrats viz-a- viz politicians and asking just what are Ministers for - which further begs the question just what is our system of representative democracy for. On the matter of Sir Jeremy Heywood and that of who is the superior partner - politician or civil servant - it is worth reading Quentin Letts in the Spectator, if you have not already done so.

The articles by Moore, Quentin Letts and Richard North demonstrate that where our money and rights are concerned, all that politicians and civil servants do is take - we, the people who fund what is no more than a giant ponzi scheme of interconnected elements - are never asked. I am forced to suggest that without the imposition of 'referism' and direct democracy, not only will our money be assigned into oblivion - so will our rights; and thereby we, as individuals.

The dearth of a blitz and the lack of 'ack-ack'

'Dearth' - a lack, scarcity : 'Blitz' - from the German 'Lightning'. That Darlington was originally known as 'Dearthington' and Daniel Defoe thought the place was remarkable in that it had nothing but dirt could probably be applied to this article in that there is a dearth of logic contained therein and it does nothing but attempt to dirty the waters. Likewise the writer of this article needs a bolt of lightning to bring forth any element of knowledge to his mind.

Darlington writes:

"An October poll by IPSOS/Mori told us that only 1 per cent of voters put Europe as their highest concern. Only 4 per cent put it as among the highest concerns. By contrast, 68 per cent say that the economy is among the most pressing issues facing Britain. MPs and the Government have to strike a balance between the vehemently pronounced concerns of a minority and the quieter, more visceral concerns of a majority."

For heavens sake, just how many times does the point have to be made that if politicians won't discuss or mention the subject - unless forced to - and the media will not write about it, again unless forced to, the public will not be aware or be able to form an opinion about 'Europe'. Darlington continues:

"To quote Edmund Burke one more time: “patience will achieve more than force”. This notion of timing it right, along with a divergence with tactics, wording and content, is what MPs, in their judgement, voted for on Monday."

First, where he alive today, Edmund Burke may well be about to find that force will achieve more than patience in that I believe the public's patience with the political elite is fast running out. Second, Darlington is wrong in that MPs did not vote in their judgement - that 'judgement' had already been made for them by the Whips; and for some by the desire to retain their ministerial positions.

All one can say about the second article is that had the MSM bothered to read the blogs (EU Referendum, Autonomous Mind, The Boiling Frog, UKK41, Calling England, Ironies Too, Ian PJ on Politics, Muffled Vociferation, to name but a few*) they would have known that the subject of 'Europe' never went away - in fact, as a subject, it became even more discussed. That the idiot - because that is exactly what this 'journalist' is - who penned the FT article continues to discuss a course of political action that cannot happen just shows he has carried out no research and thus knows not about that which he writes.

There is of course yet another reason, besides the one outlined in my previous post, that repatriation of powers will not happen and that comes from this article in the Guardian, one in which Nick Clegg has directly contradicted Cameron. David Cameron, on the subject of 'Europe' is fighting on a number of fronts; namely public opinion, Labour and Nick Clegg. Were his Deputy Prime Minister a member of his own party Cameron would no doubt have sacked him some time ago. Rather unfortunately for Cameron, who is intent on remaining at Number 10, he needs to keep Clegg on 'board' in order to accomplish that intention. In any event, knowing that all three party leaders are intent on keeping the UK in the European Union it is obvious that our political scene today is but a sham, one in which Cameron talks about repatriation of powers with the complicit agreement of Clegg, who in turn states that repatriation will not be condoned, a statement made with the complicit agreement of Cameron. It is all for public consumption dear reader and should be accepted as such. Whilst there may be a few MPs, such as Philip Davies and Philip Hollobone who understand why and for what they have been elected, there are others such as Nick, Enfield North, who exhibit a level of intelligence akin the proverbial plank 'de Bois'.

We all know that Matthew d'Ancona is a mouthpiece for Cameron (and his latest article in the Sunday Telegraph once again illustrates that) but when an avowed 'eurosceptic' MP - and a member of Better Off Out - pens an article for the Sunday Telegraph, one in which he too writes about how best repatriation of powers can be accomplished and in the process does not even mention that said repatriation is a 'no-no', then it becomes obvious the rot in our political system is firmly embedded. Anyone still believe Douglas Carswell is a 'eurosceptic'?

It must be as plain as can be that to remove the rotten, debased and disliked Quislings that inhabit our political system we must, to paraphrase Leonard Cohen, first take Westminster and then present the civil servants inhabiting Whitehall with an ultimatum, namely that they do as instructed or they too face a lamppost - their choice. After that, we bring in a participatory form of democracy, thus ensuring that the people of this land never ever again have to endure the purgatory that has gone before.


* With apologies to any omitted........